From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] powerpc/64s: put io_sync bit into r14
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:08:54 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a7ya6bqx.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171220145206.12234-5-npiggin@gmail.com>
Hello Nicholas,
Just a small comment about syntax. I'm afraid I can't comment much about
the substance of the patch.
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index b9ebc3085fb7..182bb9304c79 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -40,16 +40,9 @@
> #endif
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> -#define CLEAR_IO_SYNC (get_paca()->io_sync = 0)
> -#define SYNC_IO do { \
> - if (unlikely(get_paca()->io_sync)) { \
> - mb(); \
> - get_paca()->io_sync = 0; \
> - } \
> - } while (0)
> +#define CLEAR_IO_SYNC do { r14_clear_bits(R14_BIT_IO_SYNC); } while(0)
Is there a reason for the do { } while(0) idiom here? If
r14_clear_bits() is an inline function, isn't it a single statement
already?
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-22 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-20 14:51 [RFC PATCH 0/8] use r14 for a per-cpu kernel register Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] powerpc/64s: stop using r14 register Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] powerpc/64s: poison r14 register while in kernel Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] powerpc/64s: put the per-cpu data_offset in r14 Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 17:53 ` Gabriel Paubert
2017-12-22 13:50 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] powerpc/64s: put io_sync bit into r14 Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-22 15:08 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] powerpc/64s: put work_pending " Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] powerpc/64s: put irq_soft_mask bits " Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] powerpc/64s: put irq_soft_mask and irq_happened " Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] powerpc/64s: inline local_irq_enable/restore Nicholas Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87a7ya6bqx.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).